From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Fri Oct 19 13:54:23 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D266FCB8F4; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:54:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [IPv6:2607:f440::d144:242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E31B57E691; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:54:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0D4B53EDB; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.43.207] (unknown [154.138.16.213]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F277B53E29; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:54:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Ed Maste cc: Antoine Brodin , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r339350 - head/contrib/elftoolchain/elfcopy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201810132126.w9DLQ73C022496@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:54:23 -0000 On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Ed Maste wrote: > I think this is probably the right approach, although I also have an > ELF Tool Chain fix in D17596 which is waiting on the code freeze to > end. I'm a little confused: This was broken most recently (as the mail bomb that my inbox received from the pkg cluster and others indicates), so at this point in the release cycle shouldn't (a) the change causing all this be reverted, *or* (b) a follow-up patch committed immediately, whatever looks less risky? Gerald